Editing Folklore (section)

=== Anderson's law of auto-correction ===
The theory of self-correction in folklore transmission was first articulated by the folklorist [[Walter Anderson (folklorist)|Walter Anderson]] in the 1920s; this posits a feedback mechanism which would keep folklore variants closer to the original form.{{sfn|Dorst|2016|page=131}}{{efn|Anderson is best known for his monograph ''[[King John and the Bishop|Kaiser und Abt]]'' (Folklore Fellows' Communications 42, Helsinki 1923) on folktales of type AT 922.}} This theory addresses the question about how, with multiple performers and multiple audiences, the artifact maintains its identity across time and geography. Anderson credited the audience with censoring narrators who deviated too far from the known (traditional) text.{{sfn|El-Shamy|1997}}

Any performance is a two-way communication process. The performer addresses the audience with words and actions; the audience in turn actively responds to the performer. If this performance deviates too far from audience expectations of the familiar folk artifact, they will respond with negative feedback. Wanting to avoid more negative reaction, the performer will adjust his performance to conform to audience expectations. "Social reward by an audience [is] a major factor in motivating narrators..."{{sfn|El-Shamy|1997|page=71}} It is this dynamic feedback loop between performer and audience which gives stability to the text of the performance.{{sfn|Sims|Stephens|2005|page=127}}

In reality, this model is not so simplistic; there are multiple redundancies in the active folklore process. The performer has heard the tale multiple times, he has heard it from different story tellers in multiple versions. In turn, he tells the tale multiple times to the same or a different audience, and they expect to hear the version they know. This expanded model of redundancy in a non-linear narrative process makes it difficult to innovate during any single performance; corrective feedback from the audience will be immediate.{{sfn|Dorst|2016|pages=131–132}} "At the heart of both autopoetic self-maintenance and the 'virality' of meme transmission... it is enough to assume that some sort of recursive action maintains a degree of integrity [of the artifact] in certain features ... sufficient to allow us to recognize it as an instance of its type."{{sfn|Dorst|2016|page=138}}